← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Mahmood Hussain Syed, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 541/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

upheld the additions made by the A.O. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The first issue that came for our consideration from ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal is addition

Ramesh Lalawat, Vashi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

necessary directions may be given in this regard.” 3. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal as noted by the registry for which a petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We also note from ground no.1 raised ... incumbent upon us to condone the delay. Accordingly, taking the circumstances holistically, we condone the delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and also of 114 days in filing the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 10. In the given set of facts

Bharat Thakarshi Mamania, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8510/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

assessee through email, dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 229 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal ... From the affidavit filed by the assessee, there does not arise any malafide intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. 4.1. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blend Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 8088/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari (SR. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

deleted both the additions. The Revenue, being aggrieved, is now deleted both the additions. The Revenue, being aggrieved, is now in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced hereinabove. 4. Before

Sarit Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the notice dated 26-07-2022 issued

Vijay Kumar, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs Vijay Kumar, Ito, H.No. 841, Sector-9, Urban Aaykar Bhawan, Estate, Karnal, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-132001 Haryana [Pan: Ashpk3257A) (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 4.9.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR has submitted that the quantum addition has been deleted vide order dated 13.8.2025 and appeal of the assessee

Sanjay Jain, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6650/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Sanjay Jain, Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), 39, Mission Compound, Sahranpur-247001 Saharanpur-247001 Uttar Pradesh [Pan: Ackpj3369F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 13-08-2025 dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty order passed by AO is bad in law and without jurisdiction void ab initio

Bmr Overseas Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2), C.R. Building Delhi 110002, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6646/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmr Overseas Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), Zb-33/487, Plot No. 4 & 5, C.R. Building, Dilshad Garde New Delhi Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095 [Pan No. Aafcb8509D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 157ASection 68

vide his impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 28.5.2025. Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal ground that a notice u/s. 148 dated

DCIT, Delhi vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd., Room No. 419, C.R. Building, Toll Plaza, Dnd Flyway, Ip Estate, New Delhi Mayur Vihar Link Road, Delhi – 110 091 (Pan: Aaacn3498A)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA without

Dharambir Khattar, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5921/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bleita Nos. 5794 & 5921/Del/2025 Asstt. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dharmbir Khattar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-6, 54, Sukhchain Marg, Dlf E-2, Ara Centre, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Jhandewalan, Harayana New Delhi – 55 (Pan: Aampk7881M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, Ca & Sh. Kundan D. Wahi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250

that against the Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi Order dated 23.12.2019 in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 35/10034/2019-20, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal and the Coordinate Bench, ‘B’, Delhi vide its order dated 02.02.2023 in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 821/Del/2020

Dharambir Khattar, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5794/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bleita Nos. 5794 & 5921/Del/2025 Asstt. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dharmbir Khattar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-6, 54, Sukhchain Marg, Dlf E-2, Ara Centre, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Jhandewalan, Harayana New Delhi – 55 (Pan: Aampk7881M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, Ca & Sh. Kundan D. Wahi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. & Sh. Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250

that against the Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi Order dated 23.12.2019 in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 35/10034/2019-20, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal and the Coordinate Bench, ‘B’, Delhi vide its order dated 02.02.2023 in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 821/Del/2020

H.L. Malhotra Amd Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3405/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 24

claimed the same as business expenditure. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We noted that the assessee in its profit & loss account claimed expenses on repairs and maintenance of the above said property but these

Ajit Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S.Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar**

Section 147Section 148Section 250

vide his order dated 21- 03-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. - 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the opportunity of being heard was not provided by the lower authorities. The Learned authorized

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

from ECB to be taxed @ 5% under section 194 LC of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by its order dated 11-06-2018 in ITA No. 7212/Del/2017 allowed the appeal of assessee

Sudha Aswal, Uttarkashi vs. DCIT/ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17.11.2024, the Assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing on Ground of appeal Nos. 3 & 5 submitted that the authorities below committed error in making/sustaining

Davinder Kumar Mago, Punjabi Bagh vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

verification with respect to the unsecured loans taken during the year under appeal. 3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee has taken as many as 13 grounds of appeal out of which, Ground of appeal No.7 ... this aspect/issue arises from the decision of the Tribunal. It has been factually found and that too concurrently by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the purchase of dies and moulds did not bring into existence any permanent or enduring advantage to the assessee. It has been found that

Kuldeep Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Kuldeep Gupta Vs Dcit 80/1, Saraswati Soni Marg, Central Circle Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Brgpg6310R Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Gupta Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(Appeals), Nodia-3/10047/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Based On The Documents Found During The Course Of Search Carried Out In The Case Of Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. Sheetal Sharma On 02.02.2022, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act, Since As Per Seized Documents Titled As Page 6 & 7 Of Annexure A-2, It Is Found That Assessee Has Purchased Property Alongwith His Brother, Shri Gaurav Gupta For Which Payments Of Inr 15 Lakhs Was Made Though Cheque & Inr 12.50 Lakhs Was Paid In Cash. Accordingly, Ao Passed The Reassessment Order Dated 06.03.2024 U/S 147 By Making Addition Of Inr 6.25 Lakhs Being Assessee’S Share Of 50% In The Cash Payment As Undisclosed Investment U/S 69B R.W.S. 115Bb Of The Act & The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 9,74,850/-.

Section 147Section 250Section 69B

impugned order dated 17.11.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The only effective Ground of appeal is with respect to the confirmation of addition of INR 6.25 Lakhs. 6. Before

Grand Legacy, Dehradun vs. DCIT Circle 1, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 80Section 80I

vide order dated 19.09.2025, confirmed the same. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld.AR submits that assessee was entitled for 03 types of subsidy:- (i) State Government subsidy on capital investment (ii) Exemption from luxury

M/S. Construction Engineersw, Barazula vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 712/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

assessee in causing the delay and since the assessee was totally unaware of the existence of the order itself in the portal, the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed in time and he prayed for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits

M/S. Construction Engineers, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 600/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

assessee in causing the delay and since the assessee was totally unaware of the existence of the order itself in the portal, the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed in time and he prayed for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits